Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 0) 470

by bobbied (#49176193) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

Dude, seriously?

Snowden had voluntary access to classified information and had voluntarily signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is bound by that agreement, legally, forever. Contract law has to work that way.

As to the *rest* of your little rant... IF you are a US citizen who is overseas and actively engaged in fighting the USA and a drone strike kills you, to bad, so sad. If you are captured as a combatant on foreign soil you first get adjudicated by the military under their rules and they may or may not be required to ship you back to the states for criminal trial. But REMEMBER that if you are with the sovereign territory of the United States the military is NOT the police, and CANNOT act like law enforcement arresting people and holding them for trial.

So drop all this cloak and dagger stuff and realize that it's not as bad as you make it sound...

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 0) 470

by bobbied (#49176037) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

Are you saying that people shouldn't report illegal government activity?

Nope. Report away. Snowden's problem was HOW he reported it and to whom.

As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run?

>

Do you think Snowden would receive a fair trial? Of course he wouldn't

Of course he would receive a fair trial... Unless of course you have already predetermined what the outcome SHOULD be from that trial and have decided to define that as unfair... Look, the system in this country, despite what you think, is generally fair. Snowden would face a trial before a group of peers just like everybody else which would likely be more than fair to him. After all, the legal system in this country is "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and is slanted in favor of the accused in just about every way possible. Even trial procedure is slanted towards the defense, which gets the privilege of "answering" the charges by presenting it's arguments AFTER the prosecution presents it's case. So Snowden would get a fair trial, despite the people who claim otherwise...

Snowden is also afforded a "speedy" trial, so if the defense pushes for a trial ASAP, they get it. Long Delays in a trial only come when the defense agrees to it, otherwise you have grounds for appeal. But I doubt there would be much delay for Snowden. The facts are pretty much not in dispute and well known, getting to a trial quickly is likely what the prosecution would want anyway now...

Don't be so down on the US legal system. We have our issues, but generally it works reasonably well.

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 1, Funny) 470

by bobbied (#49175873) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

Snowden seems like a stand-up guy, Assange seems like a moron and a jerk. In either case, focusing on the person distracts from what matters: the problems in the US government.

Well if calling attention to the government's problem was really his motive, there was no need to run away. In fact, running away actually hurt his case, both in court and in public opinion.

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 0) 470

by bobbied (#49175841) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

He KNEW what the potential punishments where before he broke the law. I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury. You don't run away to avoid trial because it is the trial that lets you air your opinion to a jury of your peers and it is the way you can address the issues with the law.

Anything less just means you are no better than a hoodlum, committing a crime and running away from the law, then claiming the punishment isn't fair when you get caught. REAL civil disobedience is when you break the law, full knowing the consequences, ready to make your case about how the punishment isn't fair to a jury and if you loose, being punished.

Did Rosa Parks say to herself, "I'm going to break the law today and show these people how unfair it is, but when the police show up I'm going to run and hide so they don't punish me!" No, she stood her ground, did what she thought was right, ready to be punished if that's what it took to call attention to the injustice of the law. That's what a valid protest looks like.

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score -1, Troll) 470

by bobbied (#49174501) Attached to: Snowden Reportedly In Talks To Return To US To Face Trial

Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.

As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

Comment: Re:"North Korean rebel movement" (Score 1) 60

by bobbied (#49174253) Attached to: Inside the North Korean Data Smuggling Movement

You may be right, but I think South Korea might be a bit miffed if China gets the whole pie and I'm not so sure China wants to get involved in North Korea's struggles if it can avoid it. It will cost a LOT of money and resources to bring the north up to third world standards and I don't think China wants to be forced into spending on this. South Korea, on the other hand, has both the resources and the will to do this. I think the key will be what the USA does in partnership with South Korea and how committed the two countries are to ending the decades long war (or police action or what ever it really is/was). So it will likely fall to who is in the Whitehouse and how the United Nations tries to deal with the crisis.

Either way, we will be very lucky if the Korean war doesn't start up again... China will want something so they won't let the whole country go, but South Korea *will* make noticeable gains though this process.

Of course this is assuming things are similar in the world as they are now.... Things could change and if the USA is occupied elsewhere or incapable of controlling events, obviously China will drive the outcome more. However, I don't see the USA in that condition right now...

Comment: Re:"North Korean rebel movement" (Score 1) 60

by bobbied (#49173621) Attached to: Inside the North Korean Data Smuggling Movement

Well, I hold out hope that *something* will happen, eventually.

The Kim's do hold power based on two things, intimidation and information. They control information flow in and out and intimidate their way though rebellion. However, their grip on information is starting to crumble and the fabric of their control over information is fraying around the edges so the Kim's have to step up the intimidation part of the game which they still control. Eventually there won't be any intimidation left to ramp up and the information part will play out.

You are right that the military is the key because it is a double sided blade. Kim is walking a fine line and should the officers start to get tainted by the information that is more and more freely flowing in the country, he will be forced to eliminate the upper ranks at a quicker and quicker rate to stay ahead of it. The harder he presses, the more likely he is to force an armed rebellion.

Kim is caught between a rock and a hard place, he must maintain the appearance of absolute control in the face of mounting internal pressure for change and free market reforms which are already (illegally) taking place inside his country in some places. He can start ramping up the killing, but that will eventually be his undoing. Once the country tips and Kim is removed from power, the resulting violent struggle will happen quickly, but the problem is, nobody will really be able to tell you exactly when the tip will take place.

I think your defector is likely correct in that the *current* conditions are not yet ripe for this tip and Kim will stay in power for the foreseeable future. However, I think change will eventually come to NK though internal forces, barring it being forced into change though external forces. Will it be a decade, two or three? I don't know, but it's pretty clear that change is coming to NK and that change will likely happen while the current Kim is alive..

Comment: Re:"North Korean rebel movement" (Score 3, Informative) 60

by bobbied (#49171575) Attached to: Inside the North Korean Data Smuggling Movement

AKA the CIA

We wish.... Actually NK is one of the few places the CIA is unlikely to have that much influence over. The time to get assets into the country was long ago and where I'm betting we have *some* local help, the nature of NK society is going to make it really hard to have much direct involvement.

Of course, this leaking in of foreign entertainment and information via USB sticks is becoming harder and harder to control and once the Kim family looses control of the propaganda war, things will change on their own. I think we are actually pretty close to the tipping point in some places in NK, but for now the fear of the Kim family is keeping things under control. Once the country tips though, there will be a short and intense period of violence that I hope stays contained within the country, but I fear will spill out to the south. Once that is over, North Korea will be split into two parts, one unified with the south and a portion annexed into China. I have no idea where the split will be.

Comment: Re:Assassinate that fat ..... (Score 1) 60

by bobbied (#49171421) Attached to: Inside the North Korean Data Smuggling Movement

ASAP

I'm sure we could if we wanted too, but ask yourself a few "what happens then" questions and I think it will be pretty easy to figure out why he's still alive. What's the point of killing this guy if his replacement isn't any better and in the fight to see who's left in charge a lot of people die? Then there is the question about what this means for the Korean War, which is technically still NOT over. North Korea might (Or likely would) see this action as a provocation and reignite the war. Now THAT would not be a pleasant turn of events, even if the conflict would likely be pretty short and one sided.

No, Kim lives.... As much as we might want change in NK, I don't think killing Kim is the way to get the change we want..

Comment: Re:Java (Score 2, Insightful) 368

I don't expect any contrary opinions here on /.

(Oh you ARE sarcastic....)

Java is not the Swiss Army knife of programming languages... There are things it just isn't well suited for... But generally, not a bad choice for most run of the mill projects where performance and foot print don't really matter. However, if you are on limited hardware or have tight response time constraints, Java is not for you (but you hardware and embedded guys know this already.)

Comment: Re:But can it protect users against the Stingray? (Score 1) 58

If the Stingray is a threat to you, then I hope you're convicted of the criminal activities that make it so.

'Criminal activities that make it so' like civil rights protests and political demonstrations and gatherings?

You must share the government's views on what it would like to consider 'criminal' (basically anything it doesn't like, makes it look bad, limits government power, or interferes with the ability to confiscate and redistribute wealth as it sees fit).

Strat

Comment: Re:FCC? (Score 1) 192

by BlueStrat (#49167015) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

You keep insisting, not only in this article but also in other Stingray-related /. articles, that the NTIA allows the Feds to do whatever they want radio-spectrum-wise

I have said no such thing. In fact, whenever people like you try to twist what I've actually said into this lie, I've corrected you in public.

Once again, I find myself wasting time responding to people who either cannot understand the difference between "not subject to FCC rules" and "not subject to any rules", or who deliberately ignore the difference so they can lie about what I've said.

There you go again, trying to sidetrack and obfuscate the central issue. Neither the NTIA nor any other federal law or regulation allows Stingrays to be legally used in the manner that law enforcement has used them. That's why Stingray use by LE has been so secretive in the first place.

The fact is that the US government has been taken over by fascist oligarchs who wipe their asses with the Constitution, Civil Rights, Due Process, and Rule of Law, thus it is no longer the legitimate government of the US and has exactly the same type of authority that the Crips and Bloods have in L.A.. The power of fear, guns, and violence.

The US Government has slowly over the decades morphed to an ongoing organized criminal enterprise.

Strat

Comment: Re:Default Government Stance (Score 1) 192

by BlueStrat (#49166639) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

The FBI's activities are specifically authorized by a host of laws. That you didn't bother to learn about them doesn't invalidate their existence.

There is nothing there or in the NTIA that allows law enforcement agencies to violate FCC rules, especially without a warrant. Please point out the specific law that, in your opinion, authorizes such activities by law enforcement.

And even if such interference was allowed, that still does not invalidate 4th Amendment protections both for the intended targeted individual(s) nor the innocent people in the area whose civil rights are violated in the course of Stingray use.

Strat

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...